�山����

Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...

STL staff members are not United Nations staff members and thus do not have access to the Tribunal.

Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The UNDT Statute, which prevails in case of contradiction with the Staff Rules as it is superior in the hierarchy of norms, prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration’s response to the request for management evaluation or, if the Administration has not replied to such request, following the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before...

UNDT held that the Applicant’s challenge to the expiry/termination of his contract was filed out of time and, thus, not receivable. There was no evidence before UNDT to show that a disciplinary investigation was conducted against the Applicant. UNDT held that if such an investigation did take place then there was no evidence that it was concluded, and no evidence that a formal disciplinary measure was imposed against the Applicant as a result. UNDT also held that the Applicant did not make a timely request for management evaluation with respect to this issue and, as such, it was not receivable...

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant’s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

The Applicants submitted that they were notified of the decision on 19 June 2013 upon receiving an email from the Director, Chef de Cabinet in response to a 29 May 2013 letter. Upon review, it was determined that the letter sent to the Secretary-General on 29 May 2013 included a 21 May 2013 statement by the Applicants that referred extensively to the budget which had been submitted on 9 May 2013. The requests for management evaluation were filed on 29 July 2013 which is more than 60 days after the 21 May 2013 statement that indicated that the Applicants were fully aware of the contested...

The Applicant alleged that the selection exercise was procedurally flawed and biased against him. The UNDT found that the candidates’ answers on the written tests were marked by an assessor who did not know the identities of the candidates. The UNDT found that the Applicant was not prejudiced by the manner in which the test was carried out. The UNDT found the Applicant’s claims unsubstantiated and dismissed the application.

The UNDT found that the post in question was a New York-based post to be assigned to the Entebbe office “subject to finalisation of arrangements for the initiation of a Regional Procurement Office”. This post was filled through a selection exercise that was finalized when the offer of appointment was made to Mr. YK in April 2011. The movement of the selected staff member, along with his post, to Entebbe was not a lateral move or a new recruitment, but rather implementation of the selected staff member’s terms of appointment in line with the vacancy announcement that provided that recruitment...

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. UNOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. UNOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons UNDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...

MEU’s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. UNDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. UNDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. UNDT refused the Respondent’s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.